I think it's crazy that I could 3peat and then get upset in the 2nd round and my job security is on shakier ground than a coach who misses the NT 3 times but lucks out and makes the S16 last season.

Also, making the S16 is an expectation for those eleven Tier 1 teams every season which is a pretty high bar IMO. You could use the existing levels of Meeting Expectation, Disappointed, Hot Seat, Better Polish Your Resume (you won't need a 4th one). There is no higher than Meeting Expectations in this new model since you would be always 4 seasons away from getting canned.

Posted by buddhagamer on 5/27/2021 5:06:00 PM (view original):
I think it's crazy that I could 3peat and then get upset in the 2nd round and my job security is on shakier ground than a coach who misses the NT 3 times but lucks out and makes the S16 last season.

Also, making the S16 is an expectation for those eleven Tier 1 teams every season which is a pretty high bar IMO. You could use the existing levels of Meeting Expectation, Disappointed, Hot Seat, Better Polish Your Resume (you won't need a 4th one). There is no higher than Meeting Expectations in this new model since you would be always 4 seasons away from getting canned.

I didn't read it as every season. I think what he means is that those teams need to be in the S16 once every 4 seasons. Basically make the S16 in season 20 you have to be back in the S16 by season 24

Posted by garbage29 on 5/27/2021 12:51:00 PM (view original):
I think this is great, as there are some coaches attached to power 6 conferences that haven't sniffed the National tournament in 30 seasons and take many walkons, why they continue to coach their dumpster fire teams is beyond me. The only thing I would change is maybe base it upon 5 seasons instead of 4, and maybe have a note on the home page stating how many more seasons they have if they do not meet the requirement each season, so there is no confusion (I believe they do this or used to do this in GD

But the difference between someone who hasnt sniffed the NT in 30 seasons and Adam's criteria are HUGE.

WAY TOO restrictive. Fire the coaches who really suck. It's not hard to see. These criteria need to be lowered.

Posted by GM223 on 5/27/2021 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 5/27/2021 5:06:00 PM (view original):
I think it's crazy that I could 3peat and then get upset in the 2nd round and my job security is on shakier ground than a coach who misses the NT 3 times but lucks out and makes the S16 last season.

Also, making the S16 is an expectation for those eleven Tier 1 teams every season which is a pretty high bar IMO. You could use the existing levels of Meeting Expectation, Disappointed, Hot Seat, Better Polish Your Resume (you won't need a 4th one). There is no higher than Meeting Expectations in this new model since you would be always 4 seasons away from getting canned.

I didn't read it as every season. I think what he means is that those teams need to be in the S16 once every 4 seasons. Basically make the S16 in season 20 you have to be back in the S16 by season 24

What I'm saying is that achieving that S16 is an expectation (which just resets it back to *normal* like when you got hired). There is no way to *increase* your "Meeting expectation" if you are successful.

If 0 = No Postseason play and NT=NT Title these 2 coaches both don't get fired ever:

Coach A: 0,0,0,S16,0,0,0,S16,0,0,0,S16
Coach B: S16,S16,S16,NT,S16,S16,S16

even worse:

Coach C: NT,NT,NT,r2,r2,r2,r2 gets canned after 4th consecutive round 2 exit.

The majority of B6 coaches would be have been fired in their careers with these expectations. Ridiculous.

I was coach C at Georgetown and would probably quit this fking game if I got fired for that.

3. Basing this only off of National Tournament success is silly due to the randomness in single games. So something where if Tier 2 finishes in the top 25 they are okay and if Tier 1 finishes in the top 15 any of the previous 4 seasons they are okay (just spit balling numbers)

wait, how the Hell is BGSU not a tier 1 program?? UNC is the only school that is better.

I spent 3 real life years working to take over Duke (my dream school). I don’t want to bag on the previous coaches but the roster wasn’t in good shape. That team had made s16 3/50ish seasons. It took me 5 seasons to get to the s16. Personally, I felt like I did a good job and if I’d had been fired I probably would have rage quit.

I’m not against firings and I should have to do well to keep duke. But I think 4 years is a very short window to look at. You get unlucky in this game. Rebuilds take time. Would prefer the top tier need to win 6-8 NT games over an 8 year span. That gives deep runs more credit.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2021 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by A_B_G on 5/27/2021 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2021 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by A_B_G on 5/27/2021 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I like the changes a lot, like others have said I may have minor quibbles with the exact criteria but I think the overall spirit of it is great.

The minor edit I'd make: I think the windows should be pushed to 5 seasons, personally. That gives you one rebuilding year to clear out the garbage Sim AI or inactive coach left behind and then that next season in Recruiting Period 1 you'll recruit your first full Freshman class. If you can't get that class/team to where it needs to be by the time they are Seniors, then I think firing is totally justified.

All in all I love this change though. Also I've noticed while skimming this thread that nobody has said "if these rules were in place now I'd be fired from my school" just a lot of hypothetical "Oh I took over this school and now I'm worried" which is a fine, rational complaint and worry but I truly wonder how many people are going to lose jobs over this. I think the number will be quite low.

I would have been fired at UConn, twice, before it got to the sweet 16 after taking over a team in shambles. New England recruiting had been totally dominated by some no-named yahoo coach in Vermont (just kidding joey) and the Big East was mostly full, with UConn at or near the bottom at the time, had undergone a bunch of coaching changes after the 3.0 release and was sim run. Rebuilds in full power conferences are *very hard* and you’d have to be insane to try it under these conditions, knowing you’ll probably just be wasting 4 seasons and all the money you’ve spent on them just to get your #1 ranked, #1 seed slowdown-negative5-doubleteamed out of the second round in season 4 (even if everything else goes perfectly). So in the end, you’re basically just building the team for the next guy (probably ab90, let’s be honest).

This is going to be such a fun, collegial atmosphere, once live.

Do you think in real life that an AD at a school that has Top Tier prestige would wait around 8 years for a team to get to a S16? I don't.

And I'm not saying you're a bad coach, you're a great coach. It is a challenge to be sure, but baseline prestige exists to help those big-name schools. So basically to me, it seems like a handful of coaches are suggesting they want to reap the benefits of baseline prestige but not have to deal with any consequences or expectations that baseline prestige may bring.

I think the concept would be more palatable, if it was reasonable. A reasonable concept would be floating expectations based on actual prestige, rather than baseline. That still factors in the baseline, since high baseline prestige teams tend to eventually move toward A anyway (that’s the point, right?). But Illinois in Phelan for example, which had been ghosted and is now at basically the same spot UConn was for me, shouldn’t have any expectations until they get to the B level. And at that point, then the AD comes in and starts the ball rolling along 3rd tier, moving the goals up as the team gets better. Expecting them to go from 0-27 in a full B10 to making the S16 in year 4 is downright absurd - it is here, and it would be in real life.

100% agree with the Illinois example in Phelan. What will happen is a school like Illinois will either remain permanently SIM, or whomever is the first sucker to come rebuild an A+ baseline will get fired after making it to the NT in the 4th season, and the NEXT coach will get to reap the rewards. The problem with it starting once the coach gets to a B is what if they take 10 seasons to get there? Maybe something could be done like an extra X number of seasons to accomplish the goals based on how far below baseline the school is? 1 letter grade below baseline = nothing, no extra time. But maybe 1 extra season for each 1/3 of a grade below that. So an A+ baseline that is a B gets 5 seasons. An A+ baseline that is a C+ gets 3 extra seasons (or 7 seasons to reach the Sweet 16). Maybe you drop it lower before it kicks in. Something like that. It could be universal, so someone taking over a B baseline that is at a C gets no additional time, but a C- would buy one extra season to get to the NT.

Posted by texashick on 5/27/2021 5:42:00 PM (view original):
I spent 3 real life years working to take over Duke (my dream school). I don’t want to bag on the previous coaches but the roster wasn’t in good shape. That team had made s16 3/50ish seasons. It took me 5 seasons to get to the s16. Personally, I felt like I did a good job and if I’d had been fired I probably would have rage quit.

I’m not against firings and I should have to do well to keep duke. But I think 4 years is a very short window to look at. You get unlucky in this game. Rebuilds take time. Would prefer the top tier need to win 6-8 NT games over an 8 year span. That gives deep runs more credit.

Yeah trying to rebuild in a full conference is tough. So there needs to be some kind of buffering for those kind of rebuilds. I also feel like this will make the mid major conferences much stronger since they are not under this requirement.

The goal of this change is to start with what might seem like easy requirements, but we used average data of the tiers to generate these initial requirements, so while these should be attainable there will inevitably be folks that don’t hit the objective. If this doesn’t create the desired result we then can ramp the requirements up or down based on how it goes.

Have you ever taken over a rebuild? Or a SIM team graduating 6 seniors?

Posted by mullycj on 5/27/2021 5:51:00 PM (view original):
The goal of this change is to start with what might seem like easy requirements, but we used average data of the tiers to generate these initial requirements, so while these should be attainable there will inevitably be folks that don’t hit the objective. If this doesn’t create the desired result we then can ramp the requirements up or down based on how it goes.

Have you ever taken over a rebuild? Or a SIM team graduating 6 seniors?

If this is their idea of easy requirements, I would shudder what hard would be... missing S16 consecutive seasons gets you canned? How many coaches at Tier 1 schools would be able to keep their jobs under that?

The following coaches would have lost their jobs under the current criteria

Smith World Big 10
Wisconsin / Michigan / Minnesota / Mich St / Illinois / Indiana / Ohio State - FIRED
Northwestern - keeps job
Notre Dame / Iowa / Purdue / Penn State - new coaches

Smith World Big East
St. Johns / Syracuse / UC / Pitt (prior user) - FIRED
UConn / Prov / Louisville / - keeps job
Nova / Seton / WVU / Rutgers / Georgetown - new user (I would have been fired)

Naismith World Big 10
Iowa / Michigan State / Ohio St / Indiana / Purdue - FIRED
Michigan / Minnesota / Penn St / Illinois - keeps job
Wisconsin / Notre Dame - new coaches
Northwestern - SIM

You also fail to consider world populations which make it considerably harder to make the NT in one world vs. another. I honestly wonder what DI coaches were consulted on your creiteria.

Posted by gillispie on 5/27/2021 4:20:00 PM (view original):
i am honestly fine with john's point - a sweet 16 every 4 seasons is on average a **** poor performance for an established A+ baseline program. its just that 4 seasons is a short time from a luck / dice roll standpoint. and that its insane to apply those same standards to fresh coaches at rebuilds.

Yeah, agree. I am totally fine living with requirements for myself at established programs. It’s the lack of grace periods for rebuilds, and just the overall consternation this is going to cause as a result that I find problematic.

ETA - I just looked at a response adlorenz sent to a ticket from last night, and it appears they may address some of that concern, though he was not specific on how, he said: “in regards to a coach taking over the school after getting it, there is a plan in place to give a grace period to a new coach in a position.”

I guess we’ll have to see what that means.

not to take this to a dynasty rankings level of complexity... but what if they gave 1 point per NT appearance, 1 point per NT win, and then each tier had a point total expectation over the period - which is preferably more like 6 seasons? then instead of a 'we only look at s16s' its much more nuanced, without being overly complex? then they could also make the requirements a bit harder, with them being so ridiculously simple, it is very hard to make them harder while being so simple (require an elite 8? what about 4 s16s - etc). something like:

tier 1 - 12 points (NT2 per season, on average)
tier 2 - 6 points (NT1 per season)
tier 3 - 3 points (NT1 every other season)

i mean that feels kinda light to me in some cases, but like, those could fairly easily be tweaked. where as something like 'at least 1 s16' only converts to 'at least one NT2' or 'at least one elite 8' which are somewhat wild swings. where as in the above, they could be like alright lets bump this up 1 NT game per 6 years, much finer control...